It is sad to be living in an age where FANTASIES masquerade as science. Until the orthodoxy finds a sharper explanation of redshift than S4 theory has produced, Big Bang is just hogwash. Here is the National Geographic article that talks about ‘gravitational waves’ from ‘early universe’. Here is a sharp explanation of redshift in a stationary four-sphere universe which is unmatched by the Big Bang explanation.

The conjecture is obvious because wavelets have the properties of space and frequency localization. Particle qualities of the photon such as Compton scattering are natural. The substance of the question of ‘what is a photon?’ lies in answering the question for a compact — four-sphere — universe as simply as possible as classically as possible without violating observations. Electromagnetism is not quite a U(1) gauge theory so this is a central question to be answered for a better, simpler, answer than the orthodoxy of quantum mechanics.

Jeff Cheeger proved for a compact manifold where where runs over hypersurfaces cutting into two parts. Buser showed a lower bound . We can use these to produce bounds on the volume of the universe, which is a hypersurface of where we know . Such bounds are conservative but nontrivial.

From my point of view, the study of quasimodes for Schroedinger operators on a compact manifold is essentially the study of how quantum mechanics can be fooled by randomness because I have shown that the universe must be compact. Results on existence of periodic solutions of Hamiltonian systems plus the construction of quasimodes concentrating on periodic orbits is the area of connection between quantum mechanics as an approximation of classical mechanics without the construction of ‘semiclassical approximations’ with tending to zero. The following paper discusses construction of quasimodes near special type of geodesics.

Classical nineteenth century thought on nature relied on naturality heavily. For example, Kant wanted to understand the naturality of Euclidean geometry with respect to the human mind. This turned out to be folly since the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry of Lobachevsky and others. The story is better told elsewhere but I simply point out the folly of naturality. I think a similar folly underlies various justifications of how the universe must be three-dimensional; I always refer to spatial dimensions and consider time to be independent of space. This exercise of seeking naturality, sometimes folly, perhaps cannot be avoided. With this forewarning, I am tempted to jump into seeking explanation and organization of consciousness in an S4 universe governed by an electromagnetism whose behaviour is clear in the physical 3D universe and whose behavior in four dimensions is quite open still. The major thesis I have developed over the past seven years is that all metaphysical phenomena are electromagnetic –macroscopic electromagnetic–phenomena. I have not even attempted to work through empirical effort because it would be almost impossible to go against the scientific orthodoxy and have sufficient energy and support to flesh out S4 physics by this route. But if S4 physics can be simplified sufficiently, it is possible to study the issue of possible origin and organization of consciousness by mathematical methods and by relying on metaphysical experiences (but not considering them to be heavy evidence as they could be subjective).

We know that the universe is a stationary four-sphere. The radius must be constant and so it must be infinite time. We do not yet know the full composition of ‘matter’ in an S4 universe and I had suggested based solely on my own ME that there is four dimensional matter behaving much like liquid or gaseous charged particles. This is speculation but once a fleshed out S4 physics appears could be checked with new instrumentation. Taking these large leaps the question arises of expectations of consciousness in an infinite time universe. There was no Big Bang and no creation of the universe. We are dealing with a universe that has always existed. Something like statistical mechanics is useful to examine the question of apriori expectations on consciousness. This is a more useful direction than the origin of life theories based on accidental chemical reactions.